JESSE U. LUCAS v.ESUS S. LUCASG.R. No.

190710,
Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper
showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of
the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test.
Jesse U. Lucas (Jesse), filed a Petition to Establish Filiation with a Motion for the
Submission of Partiesto !" #estin$ before the %e$ional #rial &ourt (%#&). Jesse
narrated his mother's account of her
histor( with Jesus S. Lucas (Jesus) and attached several co)ies of his )ersonal
documents. #hou$h Jesus was not summoned and was not served a co)( of the )etit
ion, he neverthelesslearned of it and obtained for himself a co)(. *e then filed a S)ecial "))earance and
&ommentmanifestin$ amon$ others that the )etition was adversarial in nature and
therefore summons should beserved on him as res)ondent.Unbe+nownst to Jesus on the da( before he filed
his &omment, Jesse filed a ,er( Ur$entMotion to #r( and *ear the &ase which the %#& found
to be sufficient in form and hence set the casefor hearin$.
"fter learnin$ of the %#&'s order,
Jesus filed a Motion for %econsideration ar$uin$ that !"testin$ cannot be had on the basis
of a mere alle$ation )ointin$ to him as Jesse
's father.
"ctin$ on Jesus
' Motion for %econsideration, the %#& dismissed the case
and held that Jessefailed to establish com)liance with the four )rocedural as)ects for a
)aternit( action enumerated in thecase of
Herrera v. Alba
. #his )rom)ted Jesse to file a Motion for %econsideration of his own which
the %#& $ranted. "new hearin$ was scheduled where the %#& held that rulin$ on
the $rounds relied u)on b( Jesse for filin$ the instant )etition is )remature considerin$ that a full-blown
trial has not (et ta+en )lace. Jesus filed a Motion for %econsideration which was denied b(
the %#&. *e then filed a )etitionfor
certiorari
with the &ourt of "))eals (&"). #he &" ruled in favor of Jesus, it noted that Jesse
failed toshow that the four si$nificant as)ects of a traditional )aternit( action had been met and held that !"testin$
should not be allowed when the )etitioner has failed to establish a
prima facie
case.
ISSUE:.hether or not a prima facie showin$ is necessar( before a court can issue
a !" testin$ order.
HELD: Petition GRANTED.

Misapplicatio o! H"##"#a $. Al%a %& t'" R"(ioal T#ial Co)#t a* t'" Co)#t
o! App"als.
#he statement in
Herrera v. Alba
that there are four si$nificant )rocedural as)ects in a traditional)aternit( case which
)arties have to face has been widel( misunderstood and misa))lied in this case.
")art( is confronted b( these so-called )rocedural as)ects durin$ trial, when the
)arties have )resentedtheir res)ective evidence. #he( are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this
initial sta$e of the )roceedin$s, when
onl( the )etition to establish filiation has been filed. #he &"'s observation that
)etitioner failed to establish a
prima facie
case
/
the first )rocedural as)ect in a )aternit( case
/
is

therefore mis)laced. " prima facie

case is built b( a )art('s evidence a
nd not b( mere alle$ations in theinitiator( )leadin$.
S"ctio + o! t'" R)l" o DNA "$i*"c".
#he %ule on !" Evidence was enacted to $uide the 0ench and the 0ar for the
introduction
and use of !" evidence in the 1udicial s(stem. 2t )rovides the 3)rescri
bed )arameters on the re4uisiteelements for reliabilit( and validit( (
i.e.,
the )ro)er )rocedures, )rotocols, necessar( laborator( re)orts,etc.), the )ossible
sources of error, the available ob1ections to the admission of !" test results
asevidence as
well as the )robative value of !" evidence.5 2t see+s 3to ensure that the evidence
$athered, usin$ various methods of !" anal(sis, is utili6ed effectivel( and
)ro)erl(, 7and8 shall not bemisused and9or abused and, more im)ortantl(, shall
continue to ensure that !" anal(sis serves 1ustice
and )rotects, rather than )re1udice the )ublic.5
!ot sur)risin$l(, Section : of the %ule on !" Evidence merel( )rovides for
conditions thatare aimed to safe$uard the accurac( and inte$rit( of the !" testin$.
Section : states; #he a))ro)riatecourt ma(, at an( time, either
motu proprio
or on a))lication of an( )erson who has a le$al interest in thematter in liti$ation,
order a !" testin$. Such order shall issue after due hearin$ and notice to
the)arties u)on a showin$ of the followin$; (a) " biolo$ical sam)le e<ists that is
relevant to the case=(b) #he biolo$ical sam)le; (i) was not )reviousl( sub1ected to
the t()e of !" testin$ now re4uested= or (ii) was )reviousl( sub1ected to !"
testin$, but the results ma( re4uire confirmation for $ood reasons= (c) #he !"
testin$ uses a scientificall( valid techni4ue= (d) #he !" testin$ has the scientific
)otential to)roduce new information that is relevant to the )ro)er resolution of the case= and (e) #he e<istence
of other factors, if an(, which the court ma( consider as )otentiall( affectin$ the
accurac( or inte$rit( of the!" testin$. #his %ule shall not )reclude a !"
testin$, without need of a )rior court order, at thebehest of an( )art(, includin$ law enforcement
a$encies, before a suit or )roceedin$ is commenced. #his does not mean,
however, that a !" testin$ order will be issued as a matter of ri$ht if,durin$ the
hearin$, the said conditions are established.
&ourt order for blood testin$ e4uivalent to 3search5 under the &onstitution.

2n some states, to warrant the issuance of the !" testin$ order, there must be a
show causehearin$ wherein the a))licant must first )resent sufficient evidence to
establish a
prima facie
case or areasonable )ossibilit( of )ate
rnit( or 3$ood cause5 for the holdin$ of the test.
2n these states, a court
order for blood testin$ is considered a 3search,5 which, under their &onstitutions (as
in ours), must be
)receded b( a findin$ of )robable cause in order to be valid. *ence, the re4uirement
of a
prima facie
case,or reasonable )ossibilit(, was im)osed in civil actions as a counter)art of a findin$ of )robable cause. #he
Su)reme &ourt of Louisiana elo4uentl( e<)lained
= 3
"lthou$h a )aternit( action is civil, notcriminal, the constitutional )rohibition a$ainst unreasonable
searches and sei6ures is still a))licable, anda )ro)er showin$ of sufficient 1ustification under the )articular factual
circumstances of the case must bemade before a court ma( order a com)ulsor( blood test.
&ourts in various 1urisdictions have differedre$ardin$ the +ind of )rocedures which
are re4uired, but those 1urisdictions have almost universall( found that a
)reliminar( showin$ must be made before a court can constitutionall( order
com)ulsor( blood testin$ in )aternit( cases. .e a$ree, and find that, as a )reliminar( matter, before the court
ma( issue an order for com)ulsor( blood testin$, the movin$ )art( must show that
there is a reasonable)ossibilit( of )aternit(. "s e<)lained hereafter, in cases in
which )aternit( is contested and a )art( to theaction refuses to voluntaril( under$o a blood test, a
show cause hearin$ must be held in which the courtcan determine whether
there is sufficient evidence to establish a
prima facie
case which warrants issuanceof a court order for blood testin$
.5

#he same condition )recedent should be a))lied in our 1urisdiction to )rotect the
)utative fatherfrom mere harassment suits. #hus, durin$ the hearin$ on the motion
for !" testin$, the )etitionermust )resent
prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable
)ossibilit( of )aternit(.